Don't Look If You Have a weak Stomach : New York City’s Gay Pride 2011

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'd attribute this to ignorance, but there were member of the assembly who demanded "religious protections" in the bill. Is there any state in the US which currently treats churches like public accommodations? Has any church been forced to perform a gay wedding? Or even a wedding of other Christian sects outside their doctrine? Has ONE single Catholic church been forced to marry a Jew or anyone who doesn't meet their criteria?

NO, they have not.

Catholic hospitals are currently fighting to keep from having to provide abortions, and religiously oriented dating websites have been sued for not catering to gay couples. The only religion that is immune from PC attacks on its standards of conduct appears to be Islam, but I'm looking forward to seeing an imam forced to preside over a gay wedding in the Ground Zero Victory Mosque.

Attribute it to whatever you want to, but I agree with adding those types of provisions to the bill. I know the government hasn't forced any pastor to perform same sex marriage, but I'm all for any bill that will keep the governments tentacles out of the pulpit.

The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

When in doubt.......

Not just for blacks anymore.

I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad

Those aren't churches. Just because a religious person or even a church owns a McDonalds doesn't make it a hamburger ministry which is exempt from taxes and public accommodations laws.

So if a Muslim owned a halal food stand, or an orthodox Jew owned a kosher deli, by your logic, they would be obligated to handle and serve pork if a customer demanded it, because a restaurant is a public accommodation. Whether or not you think that abortion ought to be legal, there is no statutory or Constitutional authority to demand that a doctor or hospital be compelled to provide it, and there is absolutely no authority to compel a dating service to match people whose lifestyles are not in accordance with the site's stated goals. The site, which sought to bring singles together for the purpose of marriage, also excluded persons who were only seeking casual sexual encounters or platonic friendships, because that wasn't the goal of the site. Why must the owners of that site be forced to acquiesce to your lifestyle but not the lifestyles of casual sex seekers or asexual people? What makes you special?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Yeah, because DU defines the world. Hogwash.

My entire quote was: The only religion that is immune from PC attacks on its standards of conduct appears to be Islam, but I'm looking forward to seeing an imam forced to preside over a gay wedding in the Ground Zero Victory Mosque. So, you're saying that an imam could be compelled to perform a gay wedding? As I said, can't wait to see the NYC Civil Rights Commission take up that case.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

The discussion of law is the discussion of precedents and similar issues.

But these are not similar issues. The redefinition of marriage to include gay couplings radically alters what marriage is, while interracial marriage does not. Racial differences are literally skin-deep. Gender differences are basic biological differences, running the gamut from chromosomal differences to primary and secondary sexual characteristics. A gay marriage is, by its very nature, sterile, while a male/female marriage is not (and every culture accepts that failure to reproduce is grounds for annulment, even the Catholic Church). To equate the two is disingenuous, but convenient for those who are more concerned with implementing their own agendas than with whether or not marriage survives as an institution for another generation.

I'm not arguing this with you again. You've lost the argument where it counts.

According to you maybe.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)